LeftyBassist.com

Overheard 2 middle-aged women stating this while, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" was playing over the speakers in Costco today. I seriously wanted to chew them out, but I guess people are entitled to their opinions. Still, a statement like that baffles me. So many musical territories they charted...and created. How can someone justify a blanketed statement like that? it's not the first time I've heard this either.

Probably a couple of Aikens's, "Claymates".

I feel you. I'm open minded to a fault, but for some reason I can't wrap my head around that "I hate the Beatles" sentiment.

I'll never understand that sentiment either. Even for the most narrow minded "music fans" there has to be something in that catalogue to relate to.

I mean, I know some Norwegian guys who are so totally, entirely, ridiculously into death metal that they'll never get the black eyeliner off without a sandblaster. But even they will tap their toe to Please Please Me in an elevator.

I don't understand it either.
Was talking to a new girl at work last night. She was telling about buying tickets online for CREE - which she assumed was Creed! it wasn't, it was CCR I said amazing! what a great mix up! she gave me a sour face and said it was a waste of money she hates CCR and the tickets went in the garbage.
We didn't talk about music anymore...

Ozzy Osbourne said it best: "Saying you don't like the Beatles is like saying you don't like air."

I walk up to people like that and say "Well, I hate Herman's Hermits!"

Well PJ, that's why you should grocery shop at Whole Food...

Nah, I think it might be the Wallmart crowd that features America's pinnacle of sophistication and good taste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlGCtcnc ... re=related

Really it’s not ok to not like the Beatles? I won’t say that their music was bad I’m not an idiot. I understand genius in song arrangements and writing. I can understand John Lennon, George and Sir Paul are some of the best song writers the world will ever know. I know that almost anything in rock that I love was written by someone who was influenced by a Beatle. Paul is a great bass player who wrote some of the most interesting bass lines in pop and rock music. I get it and I have listened extensively to their music and have friends who love them.

All that being said I hate their feel, their tone the vocals it all sounds so wimpy to me. I do not apologize for my opinion it is what it is. It’s not a blanket statement of everything I love solo Paul stuff. Wings I would never turn off the radio I love almost anything from Wings but just the overall feeling I get from most Beatles material is not my thing my brain doesn’t like the sound of it. There are a few songs I like but I have never bought a single recording from them ever in 43 years. I had owned almost 60 recordings from FrankZappa who I think is one of the greatest musical geniuses the world will ever know. I’m different and I’m not stupid or don’t get it but I just don’t like Paul’s vocals all that much either the way he sounds. It’s is to me like they don’t get angry or put passion and anger into the writing it sounds all so politically correct and friendly and calm to me I know there is material in their catalog that has those elements to it. Well I don’t like the sound of the way they play it.

I come from the Rolling Stones camp and the Who. I like attitude for days and things a little rough at times etc…I don’t love everything from The Who but most of it I do and same with The Stones. But I couldn’t care less who else likes them or not and I can understand if someone doesn’t. Sorry I reserve the intelligent and well thought out opinion that I do not like and will never like the Beatles or Hoffner basses for that matter. It doesn’t mean I’m stupid or hate them just because everyone else loves them. I am my own independent thinker who at times have reasons and sometimes no valid reason at all other than I don’t like this or that and it’s fine it’s one of the greatest parts of music if you open your minds and think about it. With talented writers and musicians not liking this or that and breaking out of main stream and wanting to push boundaries and explore other options we get variety different genres of music. We get Jazz, electronic, Country, Classical, Heavy Metal etc….You get it? Isn’t that cool? That you might love the Beatles and some other completely different music written and performed by someone else but yet that guy hates the Beatles. It’s the spice of life man embrace diversity and opinions especially when they are different from yours it’s why there is so much amazing music to listen to that has changed all of our lives.

OK that was long and now I got to get back to hating on The Beatles. Thank you.

You're not an idiot for wanting to hate the Beatles... you may not be that fond of them, but you don't really hate them. You say you understand the genius of their song writing and arranging, and give tribute to Paul for coming up with some of the "most interesting" bass lines in pop and rock music. You're a huge fan of Wings, and don't turn the radio off when you hear one of their songs, so you obviously don't hate Paul's writing/singing....

AustinLeftyBass could give us both a history lesson regarding The Beatles, but I think you have to take them in the context of history, and the time/period they became promenant in. Just as Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, The Beatles, along with Elvis IMHO, did more to break the mold of the "under 3-minute" song barrier than any other band at the time. Sure, they had to start out just like every other band; Herman's Hermits, Dave Clark 5, Beach Boys, etc., but after a number of smash-hit albums, they had the power- i.e. financial clout - to dictate to Apple records what THEY wanted to record (and how it WAS recorded) - and a new level of sound, and song length for that matter, was born. You have to look at The Beatles as two separate bands really... up to Rubber Soul, they were a Pop band, writing hits more for radio play, and to suit their record label. Revolver however, marked a turning point for them, because they took creative control over the recording process ( and literally an iron-fisted control over Apples studios during their recording sessions). Along with a young recording engineer named Geoff Emerick, they created and pioneered a host of recording techniques that continues to this day (Rolling Stone ranked Revolver as the third ranked album of all time....).

In fact, on their last tour (1966), they didn't play any songs off Revolver because it was truly a studio recording, with too many parts that couldn't be played by a four-piece touring band. Also, because of their Fame, and the Fortune they represented, they were one of the first groups to tell their label how they would record their next album, which was another landmark in music; Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (Rolling Stone ranked it number one on it's list of 500 greatest albums of all time).

At this point in their career, The Beatles had no intention of ever touring again, and Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band was an album created with many layers, textures, and recording techniques, with the mind-set that it was pure-and-simple a studio album, and never intended to be played onstage (Another band took this same approach many years later... Steely Dan).

The White album was their last great album (ranked tenth on Rolling Stone's list) although it took the critics years to warm up to it and understand it. At that time, The Beatles were going through major upheavals in their personal lives; all of which eventually led to the demise of one of the most seminal bands in the history of music.

I've got to be honest; growing up, I enjoyed The Beatles, but never bought their records. And, like you, I thought they were a fun band to sing along to, but I was far more into The Who, Creedence, Santana, Montrose, ELP, The Doors etc., to feel a "heavy" vibe for The Beatles. It's only been in the last ten years-or-so that I've become a big fan, because I've had to learn their songs for the classic rock band I play in (and because the drummer was literally a Beatles historian!). I've dug deeper into their music, read several books on The Beatles; and, I've attended the "Abbey Road On The River" Beatles festival held annually in Louisville, Ky, several times now. That's why I've come to LOVE The Beatles for the prolific amount of catchy songs they've written, and for the "heavy" songs they've also written (Revolution, He's So Heavy, Hey Jude, Eleanor Rigby for that matter, etc.,) that I've truly come to appreciate what they've wrought in the world of music.

The Beatles are like chess; the more you learn the game, the more you appreciate the depth of understanding, and how it develops. There is far more to understanding The Beatles than you might think - Chord structure, vocal harmonies, the "middle eight" for that matter... they blew the lid off of traditional pop-rock, and paved the way for all bands to "have their way" on the music scene....

Hate them? Nah, I don't think you do... Understand them? I think you've got to get past your prejudices (like I did).... I'll leave you with one last thought/song... Helter Skelter- one of the best punk songs ever!

You're not an idiot for wanting to hate the Beatles... you may not be that fond of them, but you don't really hate them. You say you understand the genius of their song writing and arranging, and give tribute to Paul for coming up with some of the "most interesting" bass lines in pop and rock music. You're a huge fan of Wings, and don't turn the radio off when you hear one of their songs, so you obviously don't hate Paul's writing/singing....

AustinLeftyBass could give us both a history lesson regarding The Beatles, but I think you have to take them in the context of history, and the time/period they became promenant in. Just as Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, The Beatles, along with Elvis IMHO, did more to break the mold of the "under 3-minute" song barrier than any other band at the time. Sure, they had to start out just like every other band; Herman's Hermits, Dave Clark 5, Beach Boys, etc., but after a number of smash-hit albums, they had the power- i.e. financial clout - to dictate to Apple records what THEY wanted to record (and how it WAS recorded) - and a new level of sound, and song length for that matter, was born. You have to look at The Beatles as two separate bands really... up to Rubber Soul, they were a Pop band, writing hits more for radio play, and to suit their record label. Revolver however, marked a turning point for them, because they took creative control over the recording process ( and literally an iron-fisted control over Apples studios during their recording sessions). Along with a young recording engineer named Geoff Emerick, they created and pioneered a host of recording techniques that continues to this day (Rolling Stone ranked Revolver as the third ranked album of all time....).

In fact, on their last tour (1966), they didn't play any songs off Revolver because it was truly a studio recording, with too many parts that couldn't be played by a four-piece touring band. Also, because of their Fame, and the Fortune they represented, they were one of the first groups to tell their label how they would record their next album, which was another landmark in music; Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (Rolling Stone ranked it number one on it's list of 500 greatest albums of all time).

At this point in their career, The Beatles had no intention of ever touring again, and Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band was an album created with many layers, textures, and recording techniques, with the mind-set that it was pure-and-simple a studio album, and never intended to be played onstage (Another band took this same approach many years later... Steely Dan).

The White album was their last great album (ranked tenth on Rolling Stone's list) although it took the critics years to warm up to it and understand it. At that time, The Beatles were going through major upheavals in their personal lives; all of which eventually led to the demise of one of the most seminal bands in the history of music.

I've got to be honest; growing up, I enjoyed The Beatles, but never bought their records. And, like you, I thought they were a fun band to sing along to, but I was far more into The Who, Creedence, Santana, Montrose, ELP, The Doors etc., to feel a "heavy" vibe for The Beatles. It's only been in the last ten years-or-so that I've become a big fan, because I've had to learn their songs for the classic rock band I play in (and because the drummer was literally a Beatles historian!). I've dug deeper into their music, read several books on The Beatles; and, I've attended the "Abbey Road On The River" Beatles festival held annually in Louisville, Ky, several times now. That's why I've come to LOVE The Beatles for the prolific amount of catchy songs they've written, and for the "heavy" songs they've also written (Revolution, He's So Heavy, Hey Jude, Eleanor Rigby for that matter, etc.,) that I've truly come to appreciate what they've wrought in the world of music.

The Beatles are like chess; the more you learn the game, the more you appreciate the depth of understanding, and how it develops. There is far more to understanding The Beatles than you might think - Chord structure, vocal harmonies, the "middle eight" for that matter... they blew the lid off of traditional pop-rock, and paved the way for all bands to "have their way" on the music scene....

Hate them? Nah, I don't think you do... Understand them? I think you've got to get past your prejudices (like I did).... I'll leave you with one last thought/song... Helter Skelter- one of the best punk songs ever!

There's a difference between "not liking" and "hating" something. You're free to not like the Beatles. You seem to respect their accomplishments as a group and solo (and boy, are there many!), which is a far cry from hating them (or thinking they're "stupid", which says more about the intelligence of the person uttering that statement than anything else).

The Who are probably my #2 band, and while I personally don't 'get' Zappa, I think he's one of the most underrated composers of the Twentieth century.

Some good points, fivebass52. Just wanted to clarify a few things though:



The Beatles formed Apple Records/Apple Corp. in 1968 as an outlet for their creative expression (and other artists) in music, film, etc. They were signed to Parlophone in the UK and Capitol in the US prior, who continued to distribute Apple's records after the formation of Apple. So technically they weren't dictating to Apple, since it was themselves. But you're right, success and power allowed them to form their own label and produce what they wanted under their own company. (They even ran an ad looking for talent, and were supposedly inundated with a turnout of people they couldn't handle, LOL):

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh5 ... talent.jpg

The formation of Apple, in and of itself, was a huge revelation (even if it was poorly run by all accounts) , since it marked one of the first times in music history that an artist formulated their own record label in an attempt to gain creative control. Many artists followed suit thereafter: The Stones with Rolling Stones Records, Led Zeppelin with Swan Song, etc.



What, no love for Abbey Road?

Getting back on track, I really think people such as the 2 in Costco are a general representation of individuals who have a limited understanding/interest of the group and have formulated an opinion without knowing (or caring) about the bigger picture. That's fine, I've been guilty of that. Try as I may to understand the "awesomeness" of someone like Springsteen and being constantly questioned by others why I don't, I just will never warm up to the guy. That's not to say I don't respect him, since I do, but when told I need to delve deeper I can't be bothered. That has EVERYTHING to do with the man's voice, IMO, which I just can't warm up to. Likewise, I understand why some people can be irritated by McCartney's voice, particularly on the fluffier ballad stuff ("I Will"). My wife hates his voice too and his penchant for "cutesiness" ("Let 'Em In", for example). But, to me, Springsteen more or less has 1 voice whereas McCartney has several, such that I've shocked my wife with some of his songs when she was quick to dismiss him since she had no idea it was him singing. Check out his voice on, "I've Got a Feeling", "Why Don't We Do it in the Road", "Helter Skelter" or "Maybe I'm Amazed" and there's no argument that the guy can't rock. All vastly different sounding than his "pretty" voice.

Apple was actually a reorg of their original partnership company, Beatles, Ltd., which was formed in 1963. Paperwork to rename the company "Apple" was filed in 1967. One inspiration for setting up their own label might have been United Artists, the film company, which was set up by Hollywood stars such as Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks around 1920. All of the Beatles' motion pictures were released through UA.

PJ and MC, thanks for the clarification on some of the points I glossed over. Definitely love for Abbey road, just didn't want to write a small novela at 2am! I agree with you on Paul's voice; he could go from (and still can) cutesy to snarly...

You're right about Springsteen having a more one-dimensional voice, but I do like the breadth and width of his writing. Check out his solo album Nebraska as an example.... and I really enjoy slamming into Born To Run, which is a great bass song!

Interesting thread, sorry I'm late to it, been on vacation.
Reminds me of the time my (much younger than I)brother-in-law told me of a kid he worked with who hated The Beatles, made everyone aware of his hatred of The Beatles, it was his "thing". I guess he liked the shock value, and he apparently especially loved to remind my BIL about it, knowing my gig. I went to visit my BIL at work one day and he introduced me to this kid. Oh the back-tracking that went on!! He was adamant that he NEVER said he hated The Beatles, that they "had a few good tunes", etc. I guess he thought I was gonna punch him or something!
To each his own I say. Hate the Beatles? Fine by me. There are TONS of very popular bands/artists that I hate. Tons!
But to discount The Beatles' music, or their affect on the world WOULD be wrong/stupid.
RR

The Beatles have hold on our culture in an almost religious way. So to say you don't like them is treated along the lines of blasphemy or at least screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's been this way for a long time. Remember the controversy over the "Meet The Residents" album cover? And that was 1974! It's much stronger now. No other artist in any medium inspires such intense loyalty that I'm aware of.